Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 23:44:52 +0300 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> To: d@delphij.net Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ZFS default compression algo for contemporary FreeBSD versions Message-ID: <51D5DEC4.2000101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51D5DCDF.2030503@delphij.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307041620420.2446@woozle.rinet.ru> <51D576E1.6030803@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307041950400.2446@woozle.rinet.ru> <51D59B6C.5030600@gmail.com> <51D59C88.9060403@FreeBSD.org> <51D5DAB9.4070507@gmail.com> <51D5DCDF.2030503@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
04.07.2013 23:36, Xin Li wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 7/4/13 1:27 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: >> 04.07.2013 19:02, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> on 04/07/2013 18:57 Volodymyr Kostyrko said the following: >>>> Yes. Much better in terms of speed. >>> >>> And compression too. >> >> Can't really say. >> >> When the code first appeared in stable I moved two of my machines >> (desktops) to LZ4 recreating each dataset. To my surprise gain at >> transition from lzjb was fairly minimal and sometimes LZ4 even >> loses to lzjb in compression size. However better >> compression/decompression speed and moreover earlier takeoff when >> data is incompressible clearly makes lz4 a winner. > > I'm interested in this -- what's the nature of data on that dataset > (e.g. plain text? binaries? images?) Triple no. Biggest difference in lzjb favor was at zvol with Mac OS X Snow Leo. Maybe it's just because recordsize is too small on zvols? Anyway the difference was like a 1% or 2%. Can't remember but can retest. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51D5DEC4.2000101>